You are here

Announcements

All Kickstarter Backers: Please go to your Kickstarter account and update your emails.
We're trying to give you as much time as possible for the staged rollout of pre-Alpha.
Make sure you can log in, and make sure your email address is up to date.
Please make sure *@missingworldsmedia.com is set to Allowed or Not Junk in your email settings.

First of all the Devs have already stated this is not going to happen. They are free to blow this off. I will still buy the product and spend a ton of money with them. Gunners are slated for a future release.

But this is a big "please" to include this new class for launch.GUNNER is a blaster with defense! Green Lantern and any number of Blasters with force fields will be possible. a Gunner is pure comics. I would rather have a gunner than a blaster with control powers.

Please sign on to join the petition. just understand the devs were never planning on this class for launch.

With the exception of my favorite corrupter that I want to recreate, most of my blaster concepts are predicated on being gunners. I am resolved to the idea that I will have to accept their limitations until the defense spec is available for them. Then I can spec them into what they are truly meant to be and use the tertiary powers to maintain thematic consistency within the character.

Signed.
But I see a balance issue with a ranged character being as hard to kill as a melee tank.

I still think an MMORPG should abandon the taunt concept. You have no taunt, you have no tank. Then it is all about controllers and groups, and every boss fight doesn't degenerate to a tank "holding aggro", and nobody gets to have super defense.

Comics aren't like that -- all stories, even Superman ones, have the heroes easily beat up by comparable villains. There is no tanking.

It is like we're stuck in some weird parallel world where someone made this clumsy taunt invention by mistake in deep history and now it is assumed to be core to this kind of game.

—

__________________

The very existence of the taunting tank irritates, for it requires idiotic AI that obeys the taunt.

Taunt works by leveraging one f two mechanics; aggro or threat.
It originated back in the day with MUDs as a way for for certain tougher classes to provide assistance to other squishier classes.

To this day, game AI relies on either an aggro list or threat (or even a combination) to determine target priority. This doesn't make AI 'simple' but how the threat / aggro mechanics are designed may be simple.

Our current plan is to design a threat system taking multiple vairables into account. And 'taunt' is designed likenour control mechanics which are non-binary. Taunt then isn't design to specifically manipualte AI but affect the target's actions be it pc or npc. It was a specific request by our AI dev.

—

I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic - Tech Team.

desviper wrote:
Signed.
But I see a balance issue with a ranged character being as hard to kill as a melee tank.
I still think an MMORPG should abandon the taunt concept. You have no taunt, you have no tank. Then it is all about controllers and groups, and every boss fight doesn't degenerate to a tank "holding aggro", and nobody gets to have super defense.
Comics aren't like that -- all stories, even Superman ones, have the heroes easily beat up by comparable villains. There is no tanking.
It is like we're stuck in some weird parallel world where someone made this clumsy taunt invention by mistake in deep history and now it is assumed to be core to this kind of game.

I hope you aren't talking about aggro mechanics in general but rather the snap-aggro mechanics of taunt abilities. Without some form of aggro-table (which is different from taunt) we'll essentially have Guild Wars where it doesn't feel like we're playing as a group but rather as a bunch of individuals that happen to be in the same instance due to how they need to be able to tank heal DPS and whatnot at the same time since they can't specialize in the same way that a game with "proper" aggro-tables allows for.

Taunt (as in snap-aggro) is only one way to manage aggro and if I've read MWM correctly it will also be one of several options for aggro-management in CoT.

I also would like to see taunts go away as they are currently implemented in today’s games. Two things work against us when we try to remove taunt from the game, however. The first is balance and the second is gameplay. I’ve editied this response to just be about balance because it is way too looOOOOoong.

Attacks of opportunity is a game invention that delivers similar results to a taunt. With attacks of opportunity, an enemy that attempts to bypass or disengage from your character exposes itself to an attack from your character without the benefit of defense. So once your front line fighter engages with the enemy, the enemy should want to stay engaged with your fighter until one or the other is defeated or an opportunity presents itself with a greater reward/risk ratio. This requires a tank that can actually hurt the enemy, however. When an enemy feels no threat from your tank because its hit points are so much greater than the damage output of the tank, you will need to invent some other mechanic (taunt) to keep the enemy engaged with the tank. This is because of the first reason:

Balance.
When each character class is expected to be about equal to the others in terms of 1 v 1, then you get things like anemic attack power out of your tank, and no defense from your blaster. The easiest way to visualize game balance for me is this:

Imagine two players fight each other and they only have 2 stats: offense and defense. If both players have a rating of 1 in offense and a rating of 1 in defense, then there is parity. Say you want to add an offensive class and a defensive class into the mix. You could make your offensive class have an offense of 2.0 and a defense of 0.5 and the defensive class have an offense of 0.5 and a defense of 2.0. Thus no matter which class mix you put against each other, the result is always parity (it takes the same amount of time for each class to remove all the hit points of the other classes). When you start adding things like Crowd Control, armor, health, healing, buffs and debuffs, things start to get more complicated, but fundamentally it is all just the same basic calculation.

We all know the player base would be up in arms if the developers did not try to maintain parity between the classes. As was already mentioned in this thread, people don’t want to see a blaster with the defense of a tank. And I can imagine the same people would not want to see a tank with the offense of a scrapper.

Classic non-pvp roleplaying games have never been about balance. They've been about utility. Your typical mage could never solo things your typical fighter could, and vice versa. A well rounded group, such that the weaknesses of each member is covered by the strengths of another is what grouping in an RPG is all about. That brings us to the next reason Taunt exists: Gameplay. What would a group look like without a tank that taunts? (I’ve written too much already and will stop there)

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

Comics aren't like that -- all stories, even Superman ones, have the heroes easily beat up by comparable villains. There is no tanking.

I know taunt in gaming is a pet peeve of yours, but as far as comics go, that statement just isn't true.

It is true that sometimes heroes are easily beaten by comparable villains, but quite often Superman, to use your example, is right in the face of a particularly powerful baddie keeping his attention and taking his or her primary attacks, or is wrangling hoards of minions to take the heat for the less durable heroes. Same for, say, the Thing in the FF, Colossus in the X-men, etc.

Bricks in comics often--no, not always, but quite often--try to find a way to act as cover for other heroes. It's actually a very classic comic convention, and it is also a very sensible and intelligent tactic for leveraging individual assets in a group combat situation.

So, while what you said is true for some comic book stories and you can find some examples of it, it definitely isn't true for "all" stories. More durable heroes finding a way to act as cover for other heroes--and civilians--is very common and quite easy to find examples of.

On the separate topic of gaming, related to what Blacke4dawn and Huckleberry addressed, characters for whom durability is the, or at least "a", primary attribute do need some way to garner aggro so they can leverage that ability for the team. Maybe not taunt, but something.

I personally wasn't a fan of the taunt power myself, so I jacked up the aggro on my attacks so I could gather aggro by fighting when I tanked. Much more fun to me.

My impression of Gorgon's argument through the ages in regards to taunt is the general idiocy of the implementation. I poke AV with my super duper over powered pinky attack of stupefying tauntiness that does absolutely no damage and has no status effect. Only an absolute moron would ignore the rest of the team that is doing all the DPS or healing.

I'm not saying that aggro should be an ignored aspect of the game. I want to throw away the entire nanny-nanny boo-boo aspect of the Taunt. I want a Robust agro system. I want tank(s) that can control the battlefield vis-à-vis status effects that truly and thoroughly tick off the opposition. Knock downs (ups, backs), slows, stuns, end drains, etc. Tanks should be a real threat that limits the ability of the opposition to function. That is how I would like to see aggro work.

My impression of Gorgon's argument through the ages in regards to taunt is the general idiocy of the implementation. I poke AV with my super duper over powered pinky attack of stupefying tauntiness that does absolutely no damage and has no status effect. Only an absolute moron would ignore the rest of the team that is doing all the DPS or healing.
I'm not saying that aggro should be an ignored aspect of the game. I want to throw away the entire nanny-nanny boo-boo aspect of the Taunt. I want a Robust agro system. I want tank(s) that can control the battlefield vis-à-vis status effects that truly and thoroughly tick off the opposition. Knock downs (ups, backs), slows, stuns, end drains, etc. Tanks should be a real threat that limits the ability of the opposition to function. That is how I would like to see aggro work.
(WoW. We have really derailed this thread.)
Go Go Gunner. Can I vote twice?

Understood, and agreed!

As I said, I didn't even use taunt in CoH at all as a tank, I enhanced the aggro on my attacks and made sure I utilized ranged, AOE, DOT, and status effects to maintain aggro, and I never had any complaints about my performance. For me, it was a lot more fun to "fight" to hold aggro than to "Ah, ha, ha!" at the bad guy.

So, basically, I turned CoH into what you are describing--which speaks volumes for the adaptability of the game.

The thing I was pointing out was that tanking itself is actually a time-honored and classic convention in comics. Not "taunt", but tanking. And, honestly, there is even some "Ah, ha, ha!" taunting in comics--say, Spider-Man's wisecracking or Ben Grimm's crap-talking to get them focused on him, etc.

I'm fine with getting rid of taunt. Not with getting rid of aggro mechanics that allow defensive characters to do their thing, but with getting rid of actual taunt powers.

But IF there were to be taunt powers, what could be awesome would be to allow the character to pick the animation AND battle cry. That could be cool, fun, or even hilarious.

Aaaand I just realized how much I've contributed to the derailing of this thread. Last post for me on derail topic. Sorry Cyclops :/.

Yeah tanking is a time-honoured fact of Supers - I remember in the old JLA cartoon someone (Green Lantern?) remarking that Superman doesn't/should dodge more attacks, and Supes responds with something like "I take the big hits to that they (the squishier JLA members) don't have to."

As for the actual Taunt power - I'd much rather aggro/threat be generated by using my tank's attacks/powers rather then a specific "attack me" power. I always thought it didn't quite fit well with many of my Tank builds/concepts.

That said though, I can see such a power be valid in several cases, like a form of mind control or pheromones. With the right descriptor it could still work. Same goes for the other side of the same coin - "Placate". So maybe have them as tertiary powers in a "mind control"-like set? That way they are not a central core power of the Classification's playstyle, but still available if wanted.

As for the Gunner - I'd be all for more Specifications being added in for launch. That said - there is a very good reason why this particular one is being added later (likely needs a lot of balance testing). So - if the devs find time for it - great! If not - oh well - it will come in the future.

Honestly I'd expect to see the Hunter added before the Gunner - we are starting off with "Corruptors", and peeps will want to re-roll their "Blasters" I'd imagine. Gunners may not be seen for a while I'm afraid.

Yeah tanking is a time-honoured fact of Supers - I remember in the old JLA cartoon someone (Green Lantern?) remarking that Superman doesn't/should dodge more attacks, and Supes responds with something like "I take the big hits to that they (the squishier JLA members) don't have to."

This just reminded me of something. A couple of somethings actually. One something each from two separate games that maybe we could synthesize together into one really cool something in our game.

The first is something I remember really enjoying playing a tank in Warhammer Online. My Chosen was a shield wielder and could get into a shield stance that protected everyone behind me. It couldn't last forever, but we tanks knew how to rotate with one another during city sieges so our long range casters could do their work well protected behind us.

The second something is how it is common in games now to show telegraphs of big attacks on the ground to give players a chance to get out of the way or block. Wildstar does this for every attack, not just the big ones, but FFXIV and most other games do this now too for big attacks you are supposed to get out of the way of.

Synthesize these two concepts and you get what Superman does: a tank can get in front of a broadcast big attack so that everyone on the other side of him is protected from the attack. I could see this being a partial block only, unless the tank commits to actively blocking it. This could be a momentum user, perhaps, so the player can choose the most opportune time to spend momentum to protect his teammates the most, or it could just be a simple block skill of some sort.

An invulnerability tank would be perfect for this, at least against physical threats. A willpower tank would be good against magic or mental attacks. A regen tank could take hits for his teammates, but this could be a problem for an evasion tank. On the other hand, an evasion tank should still be able to do it but the block would be with his or her otherwise unprotected body and so would really take a lot of unmitigated damage in the process; which is a pretty heroic thing to do, and would be in keeping with the lore history of heroic tanks. There are plenty of examples of heroes falling from the sky with tattered capes after standing in the way of a blast and sacrificing themselves for others. Likewise with invulnerability tanks facing mental attacks or willpower tanks facing physical attacks, etc. In other words, the sacrifice mechanic should work for all tanks and the type of tank would determine how much damage they take in their sacrifice.

I'd like to see the AI do this as well. This kind of mechanic, even in PvP, would create a natural desire by all parties to put tanks out front and have ranged players behind them. Scrappers and anyone attempting to flank would be susceptible to ranged attacks from their enemies and that sounds about right. So a smart AI who tries to take out the healers first would try to snipe them and send out flankers. The tanks in your party could block the snipes with their bodies using this mechanic, and your ranged players could make the strategic decision whether to protect your own healers from the flankers or try to snipe the enemy healers. All of a sudden, we have a party system again, with an important tank role, and no one ever used taunt.

Am I missing anything?

Will we even have a telegraph system in this game?

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

I seem to remember the Shield Defense powerset having a "Grant Cover" power, which buffed nearby allies as if you were using your shield to protect them. If rather than aggroing enemies you instead buffed your allies while simultaneously buffing yourself, (almost like a self-centered Defender) then the tank could ensure group survivability. Also, CoT introduced the "Bruiser" mastery, which cripples and debuffs enemies with your attacks. Usually you think of an aggro-managing tank as someone who does something to provoke the enemy, so perhaps his attacks may have a stronger CC/debuff component than a Scrapper-like class; after all, you would be pretty annoyed if somebody kept dazing you. Maybe the Bruiser mastery just magnifies these debuffs so the enemy is even less capable of dealing damage.

Honestly, the Gunner might present some balancing issues that the CoT devs might need some actual gameplay experience under their belts with more familiar archetype structures before tackling the new design.

Would love to see it at launch but heck I'd love to see all these variants at launch! If we get the equiv of a Defender/Corruptor, Controller, Tanker, Brute/Scrapper/Stalker on Day One I'd be a happy camper!

Random thoughts:

* I don't recall what they've said of Masterminds, they aren't going to be ready for launch are they? A great archetype that will hopefully live on.

* If the muddled mess of the classical Blaster is never introduced I'd be fine, that archetype was poorly conceived from the start of CoH. And I'm saying that with my CoH main being a Blaster.

* Dominators fall a bit into the same mess as Blasters. Our CoH devs never should have gone down the road of making yet another new powerset type just for Dominators, IMO they should have either got melee attacks or ranged attacks, not the hodge-podge "Assault" sets. It just makes too much work on the devs. Make 1 electric-melee powerset instead of Electrical Melee, Electrical Manipulation, and Electrical Assault.

Honestly, the Gunner might present some balancing issues that the CoT devs might need some actual gameplay experience under their belts with more familiar archetype structures before tackling the new design.
Would love to see it at launch but heck I'd love to see all these variants at launch! If we get the equiv of a Defender/Corruptor, Controller, Tanker, Brute/Scrapper/Stalker on Day One I'd be a happy camper!

Here's hoping that the tertiary pools end up being as robust as MWM has indicated. If so, the Gunner (light) will be present at launch; which will also allow MWM to datamine their effectiveness.

Baalumbral wrote:

Random thoughts:
* I don't recall what they've said of Masterminds, they aren't going to be ready for launch are they? A great archetype that will hopefully live on.

I believe MWM indicated that MMs would be held back to later development due to fact that it is the most complicated class to design. If I remember correctly, the plan is to implement pets for other archetypes so they can datamine the results. They want to make sure the MM and the Pets AI is ready before releasing it in game.

* Dominators fall a bit into the same mess as Blasters. Our CoH devs never should have gone down the road of making yet another new powerset type just for Dominators, IMO they should have either got melee attacks or ranged attacks, not the hodge-podge "Assault" sets. It just makes too much work on the devs. Make 1 electric-melee powerset instead of Electrical Melee, Electrical Manipulation, and Electrical Assault.

I don't think the main problem was them making a new power set-type but rather that they didn't have a good framework beneath it where you could mix and match existing powers into new power set-types.

Hopefully MWM has a framework for powers where the base "power level" of a power is determined by the placement in the power set and if its set is chosen as a primary secondary or tertiary, possibly having some further AT-specific modifiers. With such a framework they don't really need to work on the power sets themselves but rather only one the individual powers. They only need to collect a number of powers to create a new set or even a new set-type.